Naser v. Ashcroft , 79 F. App'x 648 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61060
Summary Calendar
ABU NASER,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71 570 767
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abu Naser petitions this court to review the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion
to reopen his deportation proceedings to consider his renewed
applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation.
Naser argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration
judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal,
voluntary departure, and relief under the Convention Against
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-61060
-2-
Torture. Naser also argues that the immigration judge erred
by failing to presume that he had a well-founded fear of
persecution. These arguments are an attempt to challenge the
underlying decision of the immigration judge, which is not at
issue in this petition. This court does not have jurisdiction
to review the immigration judge’s decision, affirmed by the BIA,
because Naser did not file a petition for review from that
decision, as Naser admitted in his affidavit accompanying his
motion to reopen. Naser timely filed his petition for review as
to the denial of the motion to reopen, and therefore, this court
may review that order only.**
Naser argues that the BIA erred in denying his motion to
reopen because new facts indicate a reasonable likelihood of
success on the merits. He contends that persecution suffered by
his family members, and the threat he received from the present
political party in power in Bangladesh, rise to the level to
qualify him for withholding of removal or asylum.
Naser has failed to show that country conditions in
Bangladesh have changed such that Naser is now entitled to asylum
or withholding of deportation. The evidence submitted in Naser’s
motion to reopen is not different in type or quality from the
evidence submitted during his initial asylum hearing, and thus
**
Naser did not brief any argument concerning his
eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture
or for voluntary departure, and so he has waived those claims.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 02-61060
-3-
falls short of showing that conditions in Bangladesh have
changed in a way that would materially affect Naser’s asylum or
withholding claims. Ogbemudia v. I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 599-600
(5th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and the BIA’s
order denying Naser’s motion to reopen and we find no abuse of
discretion. Ogbemudia, 988 F.2d 600. Accordingly, the petition
for review is DENIED.